Luke 4:21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." 22 And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips ; and they were saying, "Is this not Joseph's son ?" 23 And He said to them, "No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, 'Physician, heal yourself ! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown (patridi, lit. fatherland) as well.' " 24 And He said, "Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome (dektos, acceptable) in his hometown (patridi).
(NASB)
In the story, something happens between vs 21 and vs 23.
I think it’s safe to say that when we study the Gospels, we just don’t see Jesus RIPPING IN to that many people. He hits the scribes and Pharisees pretty hard in Matthew 23: “woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” He hits Peter pretty hard in Matthew 16: “get thee behind me, Satan.” And of course he comes uncorked in the Temple cleansing scenes of all of the Gospels. But for the most part, the Jesus we observe in the Gospel narratives is that of a patient teacher/healer.
The account in Luke 4 of Jesus in his own hometown synagogue has to register as one of the exceptions, though. It’s very interesting to me to try to read between the lines here. For one, given that it’s **his** boyhood synagogue, the odds are good that many of those present are part of his own extended family. If so, that’s doubly interesting when you consider that they weren’t thinking twice about lynching him (v29).
And there are a lot of other interesting things going on in the text, but I keep coming back to that major fork in the road between vs 21 & vs 23. Everything had been just fine. What happened?
I’ve chosen the text from the NASB above because it preserves the string of “ands” (kai in the Greek). Verse 22 reads:
And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips ; and they were saying, "Is this not Joseph's son ?"
Then, as already mentioned, vs 23 begins the meltdown from Jesus.
The whole thing makes me wonder…was the meltdown caused by the SUM OF VS 22, or one or more of the individual parts? In other words, does Jesus react this way because they were “speaking well of him (emartyroun….witnessing/testifying in the Greek)”…or because they were “wondering (ethoumazon, marveling) at the gracious words falling from his lips,” or because they were saying “is this not Joseph’s son?” Are points A, B & C tied together as a package deal, or is it only that last part that set Jesus off?
Regardless, his verbal response has 3 initial prongs: (a)"No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, 'Physician, heal yourself ! (b) Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown (patridi, lit. fatherland) as well.' " 24 And He said, (c) "Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome (dektos, acceptable) in his hometown (patridi).
Given vs 24, it seems hard to imagine that the synagogue ‘speaking well of him’ and ‘marveling at his words of grace’ would amount to his feeling of being a prophet unaccepted in his homeland. That leaves us with only the question ‘isn’t this Joseph’s son?….(and also a dotted line connection to the use of patridi/fatherland twice nearby). In other words, what I’m saying is that it SEEMS LIKE everything was JUST FINE until they asked that ONE QUESTION, “is this not Joseph’s son?” From that one question stems Jesus’ entire rebuttal, including the part that really lands him in hot water, the reference to the prophets of old ministering to the Goyim.
I see two possible/probable implications to the question “is this not Joseph’s son,” one stemming from the milieu of the Gospel’s author (St. Luke, circa 79AD), and one stemming from within the narrative itself.
Joseph’s son part 1: Clearly, if Jesus is Joseph’s son in the biological sense, then the earlier chapters of Luke are fairy tale. The voice of rabbinic Judaism as it was developing in the 1st century over and against messianic-Jews (aka believers in Jesus) was PRECISELY the voice of “isn’t this Joseph’s son?” In other words, the question is shorthand for DISBELIEF. If Jesus is Joseph’s son, then the entire Christian Faith unravels at the seams.
Joseph’s son part 2: Besides whatever Luke & his worshipping community were seeing/hearing on a daily basis as they interacted among various religious perceptions and developing rabbinic Judaism, this question also seems to have meaning within the narrative itself. And here I draw a line to the word ‘patridi’ or home turf. If Jesus is Joseph’s son, then that’s GREAT NEWS FOR THE HOME TEAM (if he can really do & be all these things he’s talking about). It’s like someone from your home town being elected to the Senate. You’d NATURALLY expect him/her to lobby hard for new business/industry etc. to come HOME. If they understood Jesus to be proclaiming himself as the Messiah, then being Joseph’s boy means that Nazareth is the new center of the universe.
Since the question results in such an intense rebuttal from Jesus, I think the big issue for us today is to ask ourselves…..how & when do we say “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?”
cheers
TM
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Sun Jan 17th, thoughts going in
1 The next day there was a wedding celebration in the village of Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the celebration. 3 The wine supply ran out during the festivities, so Jesus’ mother told him, “They have no more wine.”
4 “Dear woman, that’s not our problem,” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”
5 But his mother told the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6 Standing nearby were six stone water jars, used for Jewish ceremonial washing. Each could hold twenty to thirty gallons. 7 Jesus told the servants, “Fill the jars with water.”When the jars had been filled, 8 he said, “Now dip some out, and take it to the master of ceremonies.” So the servants followed his instructions.
9 When the master of ceremonies tasted the water that was now wine, not knowing where it had come from (though, of course, the servants knew), he called the bridegroom over. 10“A host always serves the best wine first,” he said. “Then, when everyone has had a lot to drink, he brings out the less expensive wine. But you have kept the best until now!”
11 This miraculous sign at Cana in Galilee was the first time Jesus revealed his glory. And his disciples believed in him (NLT).
Wow, there's SO MUCH going on with this text.
First, we need to acknowledge its place in the liturgical cycle of the Church. This is the 3rd of the three main themes of Epiphany: (1) The star & the magi; (2) The Baptism of Jesus; and (3) The revealing of Jesus' glory in the first miracle/sign.
Then there are a few narrative details to deal with. Commentators aren't too sure where Cana was (there are a couple of options), but it seems obvious that it was near Jesus' hometown of Nazareth. Modern day Kafr Kanna is about 5 miles NE of Nazareth and is considered the 'traditional' location of the story. The land at Kafr Kanna was sold by the lord of Sidon to the Knights Hospitallers in 1254. The Franciscans became established here in 1641 and began building the present "wedding church" over an older church in 1879. It was consecrated in 1883. Pictures of the sanctuary show 6 medium sized stone jars behind the altar, in remembrance of Christ's first miracle/sign.
There are details about the story that cannot be known for sure, but are nonetheless interesting to consider. For one, it is interesting that Jesus AND his mother are there. Vs 12 which continues the narrative away from Cana also mentions his brothers. It is easy to surmise that the entire family of Jesus was at this celebration. Given the customs of the day it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for the whole surrounding area to turn up at a wedding. However, the plot thickens when we discover 2 things about Mary in the text: (1) she has inside information; they've run out of wine. She knows this fact already, even though it appears not to be general knowledge. How is this so? And then there's (2) the fact that she *instructs* the servants at the gathering. These two details have led some to posit that Jesus and his family aren't here at this wedding as simply "neighbors," but rather that this is a family affair. Barclay states that one of the Coptic texts identifies the mother of the groom as Mary's sister, though in typical Barclay fashion he doesn't cite his source and I didn't take the time to crawl through Google to try to find it myself. Regardless, it seems safe to say that for a long time *some* people have thought that there was a family connection thing going on here at Cana in Galilee that day.
Next, the interplay between Mary and Jesus is interesting. MANY of the modern texts, such as the NLT quoted above, soft-peddle the exchange. They don't want Mary to seem like a nag, nor do they want Jesus to appear "gruff" in his exchange with his blessed mother. That's a bit unfortunate. I have always preferred to let the Scriptures stand with all of their rough edges--whether we fully get it or not. The honest commentators will tell us that Jesus address of his mother as "woman" (gunai in the Greek) is not exactly the equivalent of "mom." I'm not sure we have an English equivalent. Maybe "ma'am"....but that doesn't quite get it either. It's not *disrespectful*, as this is also how Jesus addresses his mother as he's dying on the cross and is handing her over to the care of the 'beloved disciple.' Then there's the phrase translated by the NLT as "that's not our problem." It's a decent rendering--from a thought-for-thought perspective. Literally, Jesus is saying: what does that have to do with me and you?
Then there's the biggest mystery of the text: Jesus says in vs 4 "my time has not yet come"......and by vs 7 evidently enough of Jesus' "time" has come that he's issuing instructions that will lead to the miracle.
If his time hadn't come yet, then why did he cave in? If by "his time" he meant something more conclusive like his suffering & death on the cross, why even mention THAT at this point? In other words, the flow of the narrative appears to go as follows: Mary is aware of a problem; she "takes it to the Lord in prayer": Jesus rebuffs her & says the whole thing doesn't concern him (nor should it her). That SHOULD be the end of it. Even the post script that has Mary telling the servants to follow Jesus' instructions could've just trailed off to nothingness if Jesus hadn't said anything to them.
And yet, I'm not sure the story could've unfolded any differently. SOMEHOW information needed to be communicated to Jesus that the wedding was in danger of ending in disaster (the faux pas of running out of wine would never have been lived down by this family). From the flow of the story the reader JUST KNOWS Jesus is going to do something about it. Yet, it's important to show Mary as an exemplar of FAITH.....not someone who just *automatically* has an inside track to Jesus & his "magic wand." Hence, we have the exchange between the two of them that has her walking away with NO PROMISES in hand.
Having said all of that, I just don't get the impression that these details are all of that important to John. HIS MAIN POINT is the way the story ends: "And his disciples believed in him." What about everyone else at the banquet? Didn't they believe in him too? Didn't they KNOW that this had been a miracle? At the very least it seems like the guys who filled the jars with water would've known. But again, John doesn't seem too concerned with the rest of them. He really wants us to see that Jesus used that opportunity as an occasion to help/strengthen the faith of his disciples........aka.....THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ALREADY FOLLOWING HIM.
There are a few different ways to go with this homiletically speaking. It's pretty hard to get passed the point of all of the imagery happening here: wedding-banquet; best wine; presence of Jesus; Disciples; belief etc. It sounds like a foretaste of the feast to come--just as we sing in "this is the feast of victory." That's nice. And I've gone in that direction in the past. One could also concentrate on Mary as the exemplar of faith. Here she is the mother of the Lord.....you'd think that if anyone could order up a miracle, she'd be able to. And yet the text portrays her as no different than any rank-and-file believer. She takes her request to the Lord and then simply has to live by faith that somehow things will work out, or there'll be grace enough to deal with the fallout.
But this time around I feel like doing something different. I think it's cuz I saw that picture of the Franciscan Wedding Church at Cana and those stone jars behind the altar. I'm intrigued by them. I think you could say that the day that Jesus turned their water into wine was probably the biggest thing that ever happened to them. If they could talk, I'm pretty sure they'd never STOP TALKING about that day. So, goofy as it may sound......and I may change my mind at the last minute & go in a different direction, but I think I'm going to do something along the lines of "a day in the life of a stone jar."
cheers,
TM
4 “Dear woman, that’s not our problem,” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”
5 But his mother told the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6 Standing nearby were six stone water jars, used for Jewish ceremonial washing. Each could hold twenty to thirty gallons. 7 Jesus told the servants, “Fill the jars with water.”When the jars had been filled, 8 he said, “Now dip some out, and take it to the master of ceremonies.” So the servants followed his instructions.
9 When the master of ceremonies tasted the water that was now wine, not knowing where it had come from (though, of course, the servants knew), he called the bridegroom over. 10“A host always serves the best wine first,” he said. “Then, when everyone has had a lot to drink, he brings out the less expensive wine. But you have kept the best until now!”
11 This miraculous sign at Cana in Galilee was the first time Jesus revealed his glory. And his disciples believed in him (NLT).
Wow, there's SO MUCH going on with this text.
First, we need to acknowledge its place in the liturgical cycle of the Church. This is the 3rd of the three main themes of Epiphany: (1) The star & the magi; (2) The Baptism of Jesus; and (3) The revealing of Jesus' glory in the first miracle/sign.
Then there are a few narrative details to deal with. Commentators aren't too sure where Cana was (there are a couple of options), but it seems obvious that it was near Jesus' hometown of Nazareth. Modern day Kafr Kanna is about 5 miles NE of Nazareth and is considered the 'traditional' location of the story. The land at Kafr Kanna was sold by the lord of Sidon to the Knights Hospitallers in 1254. The Franciscans became established here in 1641 and began building the present "wedding church" over an older church in 1879. It was consecrated in 1883. Pictures of the sanctuary show 6 medium sized stone jars behind the altar, in remembrance of Christ's first miracle/sign.
There are details about the story that cannot be known for sure, but are nonetheless interesting to consider. For one, it is interesting that Jesus AND his mother are there. Vs 12 which continues the narrative away from Cana also mentions his brothers. It is easy to surmise that the entire family of Jesus was at this celebration. Given the customs of the day it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for the whole surrounding area to turn up at a wedding. However, the plot thickens when we discover 2 things about Mary in the text: (1) she has inside information; they've run out of wine. She knows this fact already, even though it appears not to be general knowledge. How is this so? And then there's (2) the fact that she *instructs* the servants at the gathering. These two details have led some to posit that Jesus and his family aren't here at this wedding as simply "neighbors," but rather that this is a family affair. Barclay states that one of the Coptic texts identifies the mother of the groom as Mary's sister, though in typical Barclay fashion he doesn't cite his source and I didn't take the time to crawl through Google to try to find it myself. Regardless, it seems safe to say that for a long time *some* people have thought that there was a family connection thing going on here at Cana in Galilee that day.
Next, the interplay between Mary and Jesus is interesting. MANY of the modern texts, such as the NLT quoted above, soft-peddle the exchange. They don't want Mary to seem like a nag, nor do they want Jesus to appear "gruff" in his exchange with his blessed mother. That's a bit unfortunate. I have always preferred to let the Scriptures stand with all of their rough edges--whether we fully get it or not. The honest commentators will tell us that Jesus address of his mother as "woman" (gunai in the Greek) is not exactly the equivalent of "mom." I'm not sure we have an English equivalent. Maybe "ma'am"....but that doesn't quite get it either. It's not *disrespectful*, as this is also how Jesus addresses his mother as he's dying on the cross and is handing her over to the care of the 'beloved disciple.' Then there's the phrase translated by the NLT as "that's not our problem." It's a decent rendering--from a thought-for-thought perspective. Literally, Jesus is saying: what does that have to do with me and you?
Then there's the biggest mystery of the text: Jesus says in vs 4 "my time has not yet come"......and by vs 7 evidently enough of Jesus' "time" has come that he's issuing instructions that will lead to the miracle.
If his time hadn't come yet, then why did he cave in? If by "his time" he meant something more conclusive like his suffering & death on the cross, why even mention THAT at this point? In other words, the flow of the narrative appears to go as follows: Mary is aware of a problem; she "takes it to the Lord in prayer": Jesus rebuffs her & says the whole thing doesn't concern him (nor should it her). That SHOULD be the end of it. Even the post script that has Mary telling the servants to follow Jesus' instructions could've just trailed off to nothingness if Jesus hadn't said anything to them.
And yet, I'm not sure the story could've unfolded any differently. SOMEHOW information needed to be communicated to Jesus that the wedding was in danger of ending in disaster (the faux pas of running out of wine would never have been lived down by this family). From the flow of the story the reader JUST KNOWS Jesus is going to do something about it. Yet, it's important to show Mary as an exemplar of FAITH.....not someone who just *automatically* has an inside track to Jesus & his "magic wand." Hence, we have the exchange between the two of them that has her walking away with NO PROMISES in hand.
Having said all of that, I just don't get the impression that these details are all of that important to John. HIS MAIN POINT is the way the story ends: "And his disciples believed in him." What about everyone else at the banquet? Didn't they believe in him too? Didn't they KNOW that this had been a miracle? At the very least it seems like the guys who filled the jars with water would've known. But again, John doesn't seem too concerned with the rest of them. He really wants us to see that Jesus used that opportunity as an occasion to help/strengthen the faith of his disciples........aka.....THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ALREADY FOLLOWING HIM.
There are a few different ways to go with this homiletically speaking. It's pretty hard to get passed the point of all of the imagery happening here: wedding-banquet; best wine; presence of Jesus; Disciples; belief etc. It sounds like a foretaste of the feast to come--just as we sing in "this is the feast of victory." That's nice. And I've gone in that direction in the past. One could also concentrate on Mary as the exemplar of faith. Here she is the mother of the Lord.....you'd think that if anyone could order up a miracle, she'd be able to. And yet the text portrays her as no different than any rank-and-file believer. She takes her request to the Lord and then simply has to live by faith that somehow things will work out, or there'll be grace enough to deal with the fallout.
But this time around I feel like doing something different. I think it's cuz I saw that picture of the Franciscan Wedding Church at Cana and those stone jars behind the altar. I'm intrigued by them. I think you could say that the day that Jesus turned their water into wine was probably the biggest thing that ever happened to them. If they could talk, I'm pretty sure they'd never STOP TALKING about that day. So, goofy as it may sound......and I may change my mind at the last minute & go in a different direction, but I think I'm going to do something along the lines of "a day in the life of a stone jar."
cheers,
TM
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Sunday Jan 10th, thoughts going in
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." (TNIV)
Epiphany emphases continue this Sunday with the Baptism of our Lord. The three traditional themes of Epiphany, as mentioned in last week’s sermon, are: The manifestation of Christ to the magi via the guiding star; The Baptism of the Lord with its Trinitarian theme (the Son is present along with the descent of the Spirit & the voice of the Father); and Christ’s first public miracle/sign of the turning of water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana.
The Baptism of Christ is an incredibly interesting topic to explore in the Gospels, given that all four say SOMETHING about it, yet all four present substantially different accounts. It should never be our goal to try to figure out “which one is correct”…as each in their way are correct. Likewise, however, it should also not be our goal to attempt to “harmonize” the accounts. We need always remember that the Gospel writers themselves were inspired by God to write what they wrote—whereas, attempts at harmonization are decidedly uninspired human endeavors.
With that in mind, I think that St. Luke the evangelist would have us note some fairly interesting things about the Baptism of Jesus. First, the wording of vs 21a is interesting:
When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too…
Some commentators are of the opinion that Luke really doesn’t want to talk much or linger on Jesus’ baptism—that what he really wants is to get past it as quickly as possible and talk about praying and heaven being opened, etc. They want also to see the END of the ministry of John the Baptist, and Jesus as the clear endorser/successor to that ministry (Culpepper, Nolland, etc). These thoughts are supported by the text. However, I think they’re missing something else that’s supported by the text, and that is the baptism of Jesus occurring WITH and at the same time as that of the people (“laon” in the Greek—it’s where our word “laity” comes from). In other words, Luke is perhaps sacrificing some detail or emphasis on Jesus’ own baptismal experience in order to highlight the fact that it is in full solidarity with that of EVERYONE ELSE’S. This is “Emmanuel” in action; God with us, in the flesh; standing in the same baptismal river as us; not being afraid to be seen with or linger with the “riff-raff.” Luke may INDEED be presenting Jesus in solidarity with John the Baptist’s ethical preaching, but he is just as much presenting Jesus in solidarity with the plight of sinful humanity.
The next interesting thing in Luke’s account is that the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove happens “bodily.” In other words, the BODILY descent of the Spirit is unique to Luke’s account. This is also noteworthy because, as Luke reports, it happens to Jesus while he’s at prayer. Wide-eyed ecstatic “religious experiences” are nothing new to our age. They supposedly happened back then too. In emphasizing the bodily descent of the Spirit, my hunch is that Luke is doing his best to ground the experience of Jesus in REALITY. This has meaning for us in terms of salvation history: It is a REAL Holy Spirit that REALLY descends; on a REAL person of Jesus of Nazareth; who would REALLY suffer & die on a REAL cross…etc. etc. As Luke’s gospel was likely the latest of the synoptics (written 2 generations or more after the public ministry of Jesus) there is something to be said for stressing the REALITY of all of the Jesus events.
Finally, we have the voice from heaven and the words: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Luke’s version is identical to Mark’s, and both are nearly identical to Matthew’s. The interesting point here is that one is tempted to think that the Father is “well pleased” with the Son before he’s even “done anything.” Perhaps a better way to see it is that the Father is so well-pleased with the Son because He knows exactly what this baptism signifies: the Son’s willingness to go through with it all; his willingness to be the Messiah and all that entails.
Cheers,
TM
Epiphany emphases continue this Sunday with the Baptism of our Lord. The three traditional themes of Epiphany, as mentioned in last week’s sermon, are: The manifestation of Christ to the magi via the guiding star; The Baptism of the Lord with its Trinitarian theme (the Son is present along with the descent of the Spirit & the voice of the Father); and Christ’s first public miracle/sign of the turning of water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana.
The Baptism of Christ is an incredibly interesting topic to explore in the Gospels, given that all four say SOMETHING about it, yet all four present substantially different accounts. It should never be our goal to try to figure out “which one is correct”…as each in their way are correct. Likewise, however, it should also not be our goal to attempt to “harmonize” the accounts. We need always remember that the Gospel writers themselves were inspired by God to write what they wrote—whereas, attempts at harmonization are decidedly uninspired human endeavors.
With that in mind, I think that St. Luke the evangelist would have us note some fairly interesting things about the Baptism of Jesus. First, the wording of vs 21a is interesting:
When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too…
Some commentators are of the opinion that Luke really doesn’t want to talk much or linger on Jesus’ baptism—that what he really wants is to get past it as quickly as possible and talk about praying and heaven being opened, etc. They want also to see the END of the ministry of John the Baptist, and Jesus as the clear endorser/successor to that ministry (Culpepper, Nolland, etc). These thoughts are supported by the text. However, I think they’re missing something else that’s supported by the text, and that is the baptism of Jesus occurring WITH and at the same time as that of the people (“laon” in the Greek—it’s where our word “laity” comes from). In other words, Luke is perhaps sacrificing some detail or emphasis on Jesus’ own baptismal experience in order to highlight the fact that it is in full solidarity with that of EVERYONE ELSE’S. This is “Emmanuel” in action; God with us, in the flesh; standing in the same baptismal river as us; not being afraid to be seen with or linger with the “riff-raff.” Luke may INDEED be presenting Jesus in solidarity with John the Baptist’s ethical preaching, but he is just as much presenting Jesus in solidarity with the plight of sinful humanity.
The next interesting thing in Luke’s account is that the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove happens “bodily.” In other words, the BODILY descent of the Spirit is unique to Luke’s account. This is also noteworthy because, as Luke reports, it happens to Jesus while he’s at prayer. Wide-eyed ecstatic “religious experiences” are nothing new to our age. They supposedly happened back then too. In emphasizing the bodily descent of the Spirit, my hunch is that Luke is doing his best to ground the experience of Jesus in REALITY. This has meaning for us in terms of salvation history: It is a REAL Holy Spirit that REALLY descends; on a REAL person of Jesus of Nazareth; who would REALLY suffer & die on a REAL cross…etc. etc. As Luke’s gospel was likely the latest of the synoptics (written 2 generations or more after the public ministry of Jesus) there is something to be said for stressing the REALITY of all of the Jesus events.
Finally, we have the voice from heaven and the words: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Luke’s version is identical to Mark’s, and both are nearly identical to Matthew’s. The interesting point here is that one is tempted to think that the Father is “well pleased” with the Son before he’s even “done anything.” Perhaps a better way to see it is that the Father is so well-pleased with the Son because He knows exactly what this baptism signifies: the Son’s willingness to go through with it all; his willingness to be the Messiah and all that entails.
Cheers,
TM
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sunday Dec. 27th, thoughts going in
Luke 2:41-52
41 Every year His parents traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover Festival. 42 When He was 12 years old, they went up according to the custom of the festival. 43 After those days were over, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but His parents did not know it. 44 Assuming He was in the traveling party, they went a day's journey. Then they began looking for Him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for Him. 46 After three days, they found Him in the temple complex sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all those who heard Him were astounded at His understanding and His answers. 48 When His parents saw Him, they were astonished, and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for You." 49 "Why were you searching for Me?" He asked them. "Didn't you know that I had to be in My Father's house?" 50 But they did not understand what He said to them.
51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them. His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people. (HCS)
This small passage from Luke is the only glimpse we get into the ‘boyhood’ of Jesus from canonical sources—making it interesting if for no other reason. The “Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” for instance, is keen to present a young Jesus as a miracle worker (albeit somewhat capricious), whereas St. Luke’s presentation seems much more down to earth.
Vss 41-45: Here Luke presents the “holy family” as the ultimate in Jewish piety. Passover was one of the 3 pilgrim festivals that all Jewish males were supposed to attend (scholars seem agreed that this was optional for women & children). The key word, though, is “supposed.” The further away one lived, the less likely it would be that they’d make the journey (Barclay says the cutoff was usually 20 miles, but he doesn’t footnote his comment). For some, merely making the pilgrimage once in a lifetime was the goal. Nazareth to Jerusalem was a good three-days journey. That Jesus’ **peasant** parents are presented as making the trip yearly is borderline incredible. And yet, I confess that this passage holds an interest for me in a tangential sense. Like most protestants, I accept that Jesus was the *oldest of his siblings, with James coming next. And, given my insatiable interest in James, I have often wondered how the son of a “simple peasant carpenter” could grow up and become such an eminent Jewish sage. In the case of Jesus we always make ‘allowances,’ cuz after all, he’s the Son of God. But James wasn’t. As with most cases, we’re not presented with nearly enough textual evidence to draw many conclusions, but the tiny fragments we are given seem to present this family as incredibly over the top in terms of old fashioned Jewish piety. The “traditional” view that the gospels go silent on Joseph relatively quickly means that Joseph must’ve died is an argument from silence. Perhaps they go quiet on Joseph because the gospels aren’t about Joseph, they’re about Jesus. Regardless, it seems *very possible that James got his piety and influence from the same place a lot of children do—his father.
The pilgrimage to Jerusalem took place in a group—a caravan of other kinsfolk or villagers all going ‘up’ for the same reason. Sidenote: one always goes UP to Jerusalem, regardless of which point on the compass one’s journey originates from. Jerusalem is physically “up” in that it is built on hills, but it is also theologically “up”…..one always goes up to the HOLY CITY. As Malina points out, travel in this culture was always potentially dangerous, but this danger is mitigated if undertaken in groups. It’s pure speculation (and so pointless) as to HOW the group could’ve left without all noses accounted for. Luke obviously doesn’t care, or he would’ve told us. Barclay says the women & children left first & were joined by the men later (another non-footnoted remark), but who knows? The point of the NARRATIVE at this juncture is that we are to understand that from Mary & Joseph’s perspective, life was supposed to be getting back to “normal.” They’d done their religious duty, now they were headed back to Nazareth to pick back up with life. But that storyline is interrupted with the fact that Jesus wasn’t with them.
Vss 46-47: The “after 3 days” remark is not intended to conjure up later resurrection motifs. Today’s critical scholars have done a good job of pointing out that in Luke’s gospel resurrection motifs are symbolized by the term “The third day.” Hence, “after three days” is simply a way of marking time. Jesus is found sitting among the teachers. Older and more romantic takes on this passage have Jesus as the ‘star lecturer’ among the teachers, but most commentators these days recognize that as a completely fanciful interpretation. It is enough to present the BOY Jesus as supremely curious and excellently responsive when it comes to what the teachers of Torah have to say.
Vss 48-50: These verses comprise both the central core of the text, but also some of the biggest interpretive hurdles—at least they seem to cause a lot of hand-wringing among commentators. For instance, some are befuddled that MARY is the one doing the talking. Some are troubled that Mary is evidently scolding the Son of God. Others are equally troubled that Jesus has severely bent—if not broken—the 4th commandment…..either in dishonoring his parents by staying behind in the first place, or by doing so here in his retort to his mother.
In simply letting the narrative **BE**, however, these problems disappear. It seems clear that Luke’s primary goal is CHRISTOLOGICAL. He wants to show that the boy Jesus understands himself as uniquely God’s son (whether this understanding came to him prior to entering the Temple this time or at this precise moment is speculation). This understanding, in Luke’s gospel, comes YEARS before Jesus’ baptism. But in order to get this out in the narrative sense, dialog must take place. It makes sense that Mary makes the initial statement because that allows for the dual use of the word Father: “your father and I have been looking for you,”…..and “I HAD to be in my Father’s house.”
That “they didn’t understand what he said to them” is simply indicative that even as parents of the Messiah, theirs is a journey of faith not so unlike our own.
Vss 51-52: These are perhaps my favorite of the entire text. I used to have a prof back at the seminary who would get his feathers ruffled at the idea that “the baby Jesus didn’t have diaper rash.” His point was that Jesus was FULLY human, and that at various times in church history this has been forgotten. Too often we get the impression that being the Son of God meant that (in today’s thought) Jesus would naturally have been a straight A student (with no effort), plus captain of the swim team, etc. etc. etc. In other words, too often we have the mistaken impression that Jesus cruised through being human without any of the bumps in the road that regular people experience. Not only is this untrue, but we don’t really WANT it to be true. To paraphrase the old church father, ‘what Jesus didn’t take unto himself, he didn’t redeem.’ In today’s lingo, we need Jesus to have struggled with long division, tipped over on his bike & skinned his knee, and who struck out with the bases loaded. We NEED a savior who experienced humanity the same we we have, not with a free pass at every critical juncture. This is what it means that he [was able to] “increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people.”
Final note: Primary thoughts on this passage have come primarily from Nolland, and Brown....who, imo, seem to have nailed it pretty well. Not sure yet how I'll go homiletically, but as I think the passage was intended to be primarily christological, I could envision a sermon highlighting the HUMANITY of the Savior. We need always to be reminded that a Jesus from the planet Krypton does us no good whatsoever. The nails would never be able to pierce his hands.
cheers,
TM
41 Every year His parents traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover Festival. 42 When He was 12 years old, they went up according to the custom of the festival. 43 After those days were over, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but His parents did not know it. 44 Assuming He was in the traveling party, they went a day's journey. Then they began looking for Him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for Him. 46 After three days, they found Him in the temple complex sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all those who heard Him were astounded at His understanding and His answers. 48 When His parents saw Him, they were astonished, and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for You." 49 "Why were you searching for Me?" He asked them. "Didn't you know that I had to be in My Father's house?" 50 But they did not understand what He said to them.
51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them. His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people. (HCS)
This small passage from Luke is the only glimpse we get into the ‘boyhood’ of Jesus from canonical sources—making it interesting if for no other reason. The “Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” for instance, is keen to present a young Jesus as a miracle worker (albeit somewhat capricious), whereas St. Luke’s presentation seems much more down to earth.
Vss 41-45: Here Luke presents the “holy family” as the ultimate in Jewish piety. Passover was one of the 3 pilgrim festivals that all Jewish males were supposed to attend (scholars seem agreed that this was optional for women & children). The key word, though, is “supposed.” The further away one lived, the less likely it would be that they’d make the journey (Barclay says the cutoff was usually 20 miles, but he doesn’t footnote his comment). For some, merely making the pilgrimage once in a lifetime was the goal. Nazareth to Jerusalem was a good three-days journey. That Jesus’ **peasant** parents are presented as making the trip yearly is borderline incredible. And yet, I confess that this passage holds an interest for me in a tangential sense. Like most protestants, I accept that Jesus was the *oldest of his siblings, with James coming next. And, given my insatiable interest in James, I have often wondered how the son of a “simple peasant carpenter” could grow up and become such an eminent Jewish sage. In the case of Jesus we always make ‘allowances,’ cuz after all, he’s the Son of God. But James wasn’t. As with most cases, we’re not presented with nearly enough textual evidence to draw many conclusions, but the tiny fragments we are given seem to present this family as incredibly over the top in terms of old fashioned Jewish piety. The “traditional” view that the gospels go silent on Joseph relatively quickly means that Joseph must’ve died is an argument from silence. Perhaps they go quiet on Joseph because the gospels aren’t about Joseph, they’re about Jesus. Regardless, it seems *very possible that James got his piety and influence from the same place a lot of children do—his father.
The pilgrimage to Jerusalem took place in a group—a caravan of other kinsfolk or villagers all going ‘up’ for the same reason. Sidenote: one always goes UP to Jerusalem, regardless of which point on the compass one’s journey originates from. Jerusalem is physically “up” in that it is built on hills, but it is also theologically “up”…..one always goes up to the HOLY CITY. As Malina points out, travel in this culture was always potentially dangerous, but this danger is mitigated if undertaken in groups. It’s pure speculation (and so pointless) as to HOW the group could’ve left without all noses accounted for. Luke obviously doesn’t care, or he would’ve told us. Barclay says the women & children left first & were joined by the men later (another non-footnoted remark), but who knows? The point of the NARRATIVE at this juncture is that we are to understand that from Mary & Joseph’s perspective, life was supposed to be getting back to “normal.” They’d done their religious duty, now they were headed back to Nazareth to pick back up with life. But that storyline is interrupted with the fact that Jesus wasn’t with them.
Vss 46-47: The “after 3 days” remark is not intended to conjure up later resurrection motifs. Today’s critical scholars have done a good job of pointing out that in Luke’s gospel resurrection motifs are symbolized by the term “The third day.” Hence, “after three days” is simply a way of marking time. Jesus is found sitting among the teachers. Older and more romantic takes on this passage have Jesus as the ‘star lecturer’ among the teachers, but most commentators these days recognize that as a completely fanciful interpretation. It is enough to present the BOY Jesus as supremely curious and excellently responsive when it comes to what the teachers of Torah have to say.
Vss 48-50: These verses comprise both the central core of the text, but also some of the biggest interpretive hurdles—at least they seem to cause a lot of hand-wringing among commentators. For instance, some are befuddled that MARY is the one doing the talking. Some are troubled that Mary is evidently scolding the Son of God. Others are equally troubled that Jesus has severely bent—if not broken—the 4th commandment…..either in dishonoring his parents by staying behind in the first place, or by doing so here in his retort to his mother.
In simply letting the narrative **BE**, however, these problems disappear. It seems clear that Luke’s primary goal is CHRISTOLOGICAL. He wants to show that the boy Jesus understands himself as uniquely God’s son (whether this understanding came to him prior to entering the Temple this time or at this precise moment is speculation). This understanding, in Luke’s gospel, comes YEARS before Jesus’ baptism. But in order to get this out in the narrative sense, dialog must take place. It makes sense that Mary makes the initial statement because that allows for the dual use of the word Father: “your father and I have been looking for you,”…..and “I HAD to be in my Father’s house.”
That “they didn’t understand what he said to them” is simply indicative that even as parents of the Messiah, theirs is a journey of faith not so unlike our own.
Vss 51-52: These are perhaps my favorite of the entire text. I used to have a prof back at the seminary who would get his feathers ruffled at the idea that “the baby Jesus didn’t have diaper rash.” His point was that Jesus was FULLY human, and that at various times in church history this has been forgotten. Too often we get the impression that being the Son of God meant that (in today’s thought) Jesus would naturally have been a straight A student (with no effort), plus captain of the swim team, etc. etc. etc. In other words, too often we have the mistaken impression that Jesus cruised through being human without any of the bumps in the road that regular people experience. Not only is this untrue, but we don’t really WANT it to be true. To paraphrase the old church father, ‘what Jesus didn’t take unto himself, he didn’t redeem.’ In today’s lingo, we need Jesus to have struggled with long division, tipped over on his bike & skinned his knee, and who struck out with the bases loaded. We NEED a savior who experienced humanity the same we we have, not with a free pass at every critical juncture. This is what it means that he [was able to] “increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people.”
Final note: Primary thoughts on this passage have come primarily from Nolland, and Brown....who, imo, seem to have nailed it pretty well. Not sure yet how I'll go homiletically, but as I think the passage was intended to be primarily christological, I could envision a sermon highlighting the HUMANITY of the Savior. We need always to be reminded that a Jesus from the planet Krypton does us no good whatsoever. The nails would never be able to pierce his hands.
cheers,
TM
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Sunday Dec. 20th, thoughts going in
39 And Mary arose in these days and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah; 40 and entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth. 41 And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit; 42 and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me? 44 For behold, when the voice of thy salutation came into mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed [is] she that believed; for there shall be a fulfillment of the things which have been spoken to her from the Lord. 46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, …(ASV)
BIG THOUGHTS—In spite of the real world issues that lie ahead in these two pregnancies, Luke’s primary emphasis seems to be that of JOY…..joy….and nearness to completion. Two separate promises have been delivered by the angel—one to Zechariah and one to Mary. Now those promises are well on their way to fulfillment.
Vss 39/40: Malina points out that travel alone in this culture was considered deviant behavior. He surmises that Mary considers the fetus Messiah to be something of an amulet against the all too present danger in such a journey. It’s interesting stuff, but the text doesn’t say she went alone, so its supposition on his part. Brown assumes she joined a caravan (also supposition). Regardless, nobody is too sure about WHERE she went. A “city of Judah” is pretty nebulous. Commentators suspect she was anywhere from 3-5 days’ journey from her home.
One is equally unsure as to the proposed elapsed time between vs 38 (Gabriel’s departure) and vs 39 and the “these days” statement. In other words, the question arises…just HOW pregnant was Mary when she took her trip? Did she leave the next day? The flow of the narrative seems to suggest a fairly quick departure.
Another question surrounding Mary’s departure is WHY? Some commentators (citing Calvin & others) see doubt in Mary and a need to verify the angel’s words with some sort of tangible evidence. This seems more consistent with a generally protestant urge to ‘humanize’ Mary. After all, she may be ‘highly favored,’ have ‘the Lord with her,’ and be ‘blessed among women,’ ….but we don’t want her getting a big head (!). This is just goofy. There are two items of interest about the account (a) why she went and (b) why Luke included it. It seems easy enough to assume that she went out of sheer JOY. The angel had tied the joy of her news to that of her cousin Elizabeth’s, thus going to share this joy seems to be the most natural and least contrived option.
As to why Luke included it, several things come to mind. First, Luke had already told us that John the Baptist would be anointed with the Holy Spirit from the womb (1:15)—which always implies prophetic ability. By placing the two characters of Jesus & John in such close proximity, Luke is able to show the fulfillment of 1:15. There could be deeper theological stuff going on too, though. When one combines the leaping of John the Baptist with Elizabeth’s proclamation about “the mother of my Lord,” one senses a high Christology at work. In other words, if all one had was Mark’s gospel it COULD be possible to assert an adoptionistic Christology: the MAN Jesus BECAME the son of God when God adopted him at his baptism. Adoptionism is much harder to hold in Luke’s & Matthew’s Gospels, and impossible in John’s Gospel. Luke could be subtly addressing some forms of proto-adoptionism. Finally, if nothing else, one CLEARLY detects the subjugation of John the Baptist in these texts. This is an important detail, as we know from first century accounts that even after his death John the Baptist continued to have a ‘following’ of sorts. Here John clearly bows to the greater significance of Mary’s Son.
Vss 41-45: The fact that Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit turns her into a ‘prophet’ in the Old Testament sense of the word—at least temporarily. As such, she is able to discern at least 3 things that would otherwise be indiscernible: (a) Her own infant’s leap was more than just a typical phenomenon experienced with every pregnancy. She [correctly] interpreted not only that it was a sign, but the meaning of that sign. (b) She discerned that Mary was pregnant. Had Mary left Nazareth soon after Gabriel’s departure, there would be no outward indication of her pregnancy. This was simply revealed to Elizabeth at the moment. (c) Finally, she was able to discern the IMPORT of Mary’s pregnancy: “42 and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?”
Strange as it may seem, I’m less interested in the actual verbiage of the Magnificat, hence I’ve omitted those verses. Brown makes a pretty compelling case that the hymn is probably pre-Lukan……but I’ll leave that debate to the critics.
Summary: Maybe I’m taking an overly ‘modern’ view of the Visitation, but to me it seems that what WE can glean from this text is an amazing and deliberate JOY at being included in God’s big plan. If I have a bone to pick with the modern evangelical movement (and I do have several bones to pick), it’s that they frequently trivialize the joy of being “in God’s will” to simple happiness……as in…..now you will be fulfilled, your kids will turn out great, you’ll live happily ever after, and your whole life will look like a something from a Norman Rockwell painting. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there is both JOY & FULFILLMENT at being part of God’s big plan, but it comes at personal cost (the Church calls this discipleship). The blessing of Elizabeth’s son in her old age means that now she, at the age of a grandmother, is going to be chasing around a 3yr old…and if she lives long enough, she’ll suffer the pain of her son’s martyrdom. From Mary’s perspective, she will likely suffer the ostracization that comes with a ‘questionable’ pregnancy for her whole life—to say nothing of her own sorrow at the cross. The point is that we can and do experience JOY & FULFILLMENT when our purposes are aligned and allied with God’s, but the JOY & FULFILLMENT we experience is that of a disciple knowing that he or she is doing the Masters bidding, **not** a shortcut to realizing the American Dream.
cheers,
TM
BIG THOUGHTS—In spite of the real world issues that lie ahead in these two pregnancies, Luke’s primary emphasis seems to be that of JOY…..joy….and nearness to completion. Two separate promises have been delivered by the angel—one to Zechariah and one to Mary. Now those promises are well on their way to fulfillment.
Vss 39/40: Malina points out that travel alone in this culture was considered deviant behavior. He surmises that Mary considers the fetus Messiah to be something of an amulet against the all too present danger in such a journey. It’s interesting stuff, but the text doesn’t say she went alone, so its supposition on his part. Brown assumes she joined a caravan (also supposition). Regardless, nobody is too sure about WHERE she went. A “city of Judah” is pretty nebulous. Commentators suspect she was anywhere from 3-5 days’ journey from her home.
One is equally unsure as to the proposed elapsed time between vs 38 (Gabriel’s departure) and vs 39 and the “these days” statement. In other words, the question arises…just HOW pregnant was Mary when she took her trip? Did she leave the next day? The flow of the narrative seems to suggest a fairly quick departure.
Another question surrounding Mary’s departure is WHY? Some commentators (citing Calvin & others) see doubt in Mary and a need to verify the angel’s words with some sort of tangible evidence. This seems more consistent with a generally protestant urge to ‘humanize’ Mary. After all, she may be ‘highly favored,’ have ‘the Lord with her,’ and be ‘blessed among women,’ ….but we don’t want her getting a big head (!). This is just goofy. There are two items of interest about the account (a) why she went and (b) why Luke included it. It seems easy enough to assume that she went out of sheer JOY. The angel had tied the joy of her news to that of her cousin Elizabeth’s, thus going to share this joy seems to be the most natural and least contrived option.
As to why Luke included it, several things come to mind. First, Luke had already told us that John the Baptist would be anointed with the Holy Spirit from the womb (1:15)—which always implies prophetic ability. By placing the two characters of Jesus & John in such close proximity, Luke is able to show the fulfillment of 1:15. There could be deeper theological stuff going on too, though. When one combines the leaping of John the Baptist with Elizabeth’s proclamation about “the mother of my Lord,” one senses a high Christology at work. In other words, if all one had was Mark’s gospel it COULD be possible to assert an adoptionistic Christology: the MAN Jesus BECAME the son of God when God adopted him at his baptism. Adoptionism is much harder to hold in Luke’s & Matthew’s Gospels, and impossible in John’s Gospel. Luke could be subtly addressing some forms of proto-adoptionism. Finally, if nothing else, one CLEARLY detects the subjugation of John the Baptist in these texts. This is an important detail, as we know from first century accounts that even after his death John the Baptist continued to have a ‘following’ of sorts. Here John clearly bows to the greater significance of Mary’s Son.
Vss 41-45: The fact that Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit turns her into a ‘prophet’ in the Old Testament sense of the word—at least temporarily. As such, she is able to discern at least 3 things that would otherwise be indiscernible: (a) Her own infant’s leap was more than just a typical phenomenon experienced with every pregnancy. She [correctly] interpreted not only that it was a sign, but the meaning of that sign. (b) She discerned that Mary was pregnant. Had Mary left Nazareth soon after Gabriel’s departure, there would be no outward indication of her pregnancy. This was simply revealed to Elizabeth at the moment. (c) Finally, she was able to discern the IMPORT of Mary’s pregnancy: “42 and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?”
Strange as it may seem, I’m less interested in the actual verbiage of the Magnificat, hence I’ve omitted those verses. Brown makes a pretty compelling case that the hymn is probably pre-Lukan……but I’ll leave that debate to the critics.
Summary: Maybe I’m taking an overly ‘modern’ view of the Visitation, but to me it seems that what WE can glean from this text is an amazing and deliberate JOY at being included in God’s big plan. If I have a bone to pick with the modern evangelical movement (and I do have several bones to pick), it’s that they frequently trivialize the joy of being “in God’s will” to simple happiness……as in…..now you will be fulfilled, your kids will turn out great, you’ll live happily ever after, and your whole life will look like a something from a Norman Rockwell painting. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there is both JOY & FULFILLMENT at being part of God’s big plan, but it comes at personal cost (the Church calls this discipleship). The blessing of Elizabeth’s son in her old age means that now she, at the age of a grandmother, is going to be chasing around a 3yr old…and if she lives long enough, she’ll suffer the pain of her son’s martyrdom. From Mary’s perspective, she will likely suffer the ostracization that comes with a ‘questionable’ pregnancy for her whole life—to say nothing of her own sorrow at the cross. The point is that we can and do experience JOY & FULFILLMENT when our purposes are aligned and allied with God’s, but the JOY & FULFILLMENT we experience is that of a disciple knowing that he or she is doing the Masters bidding, **not** a shortcut to realizing the American Dream.
cheers,
TM
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sunday Dec 13th, thoughts going in
Well, as I said last week, Advent 3 is a continuation of Advent 2. The lectionary spreads the apocalyptic prophet John the Baptist over two Sundays. Last Sunday he was introduced--along with the concept that after long centuries of silence, the "Word of God came" among His people. This Sunday the emphasis is more on the specifics of John's message.
Right off the bat there's an interesting textual variant between Luke's account of John's preaching and Matthew's. Luke says in 3:7 "So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?" Whereas, Matthew reserves the name-calling for only the Pharisees & Sadducees coming out for baptism (being evidently unconcerned with the slight oddity that Sadducees would wander *away* from Jerusalem & the Temple, Mt. 3:7). As most scholars date the writing of Matthew before that of Luke and see in Luke an intentional 'tinkering' or 'corrective,' one wonders why Luke would broaden the invective to include EVERYONE.
Some thoughts come to mind, but in the end (as always) it's mere speculation. Of course it goes without saying that the earlier the writing, the closer we get to the Jewish revolt of 66-73AD. Students of this era know that this was no "peasant's revolt." It began as a result of a series of missteps among the Jewish Ruling class (see Martin Goodman: "The Ruling Class of Judea"). Matthew, as an earlier writing, *may* have been trying to highlight a negative portrayal of the ruling class, in essence saying: 'not only can these guys not be trusted to successfully guide the country through revolt against Rome, but if you look back, even the prophet John the Baptist called them a brood of vipers.' Whereas, by the time Luke came along (likely in the 80s) all of the dust had settled. Perhaps this was Luke's way of simply being more 'egalitarian,' pointing out that ALL in the crowd were of equal need of repentance. Before we leave the topic, however, one last item of 'ownership' needs to be mentioned. It is a sad irony that we can detect very early on in the life of the church a certain anti-Semitic sentiment. It doesn't take long for the consciousness of the Church to *forget* that Jerusalem *had* been the mother church, and that the first believers were Torah-observant Jews. By the time Ignatius of Antioch comes on the scene the idea of a Torah-observant Jewish believer in Jesus seems almost repugnant to him (cf his letter to the Magnesians). One *hopes* that Luke's egalitarian treatment of all Jews in this text is not part of that early developing anti-Semitic sentiment.
In Luke 3:8, John says: "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. It has been mentioned by some that a "stone" or "stones" is metaphorical for Gentiles in Rabbinic thought. Hence, maybe John is pointing to the Gentiles in the crowd & saying: "these 'stones' could be children of God.....so don't brag about your ancestry from Abraham.'" Hmmmmmmmmm. Maybe. But we don't have a lot of evidence that John was steeped in Rabbinic thought. It might be safer to simply assume that stones means stones.
We find an interesting sentence in vs 14 "Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do ?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
Some commentators wish to make these soldiers Roman troops. If so, I suppose that would at least put *some* Gentiles in the crowd for the 'stone' metaphor to work. It seems safer, however, to assume that the troops are Herodian and of some Jewish extraction. We need to remember that when John lands in hot water, he doesn't find himself before a Roman court, he's imprisoned by Herod.
The passage ends by saying:
15 Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, 16 John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water ; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals ; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 "His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn ; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." 18 So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.
Vs 18 is one of those great "Lutheran-killers" in the new testament. By which I mean, the Lutheran hermeneutical tradition wants always to see a nice clean dichotomy between LAW and GOSPEL. Law = God's demands on us (that we, at best, can only marginally meet), whereas Gospel = God's loving gifts for & toward us. And I have to admit that this method works pretty good most of the time. Occasionally, however, it falls flat. Luke 3:18 is a pretty good example of that. John the Baptist gives a boatload of fiery exhortations and Luke calls that THE GOSPEL.
So, what's going on here?
It seems to me that Luke is portraying a prophet who's trying to stir an apathetic people to ACTION. He calls them ALL a brood of vipers, not just their leaders. His question "who warned you to flee the coming wrath" seems redundant. HE WARNED THEM.....by just his presence drawing their attention, if nothing else. And concerning his ritual immersion, all of them would be familiar with rites of immersion (for instance, before ascending to the Temple), but this rite seems to come closer to the idea of 'proselyte baptism,' the ritual cleansing that happens when a Gentile converts to Judaism. He's asking Jews to behave like Gentile converts--in essence, to start all over again in NEW RELATIONSHIP with their God. His ethical teachings about 'whoever has 2 coats should share with those who have none' have a two-fold meaning: (1) you share with those closest to you; your family; your community. John wants those being baptized to see themselves in communal terms. But also (2) there is journey symbolism at work. If you're headed out on a journey, you'll just be weighed down if you're trying to pack along a lot of un-needed extra items. Best to share with those who don't have enough, that way all will be able to journey in a state of preparedness. The journey is metaphorical.....in that it is a journey of *faith*.....but John and Jesus were not gnostics. It's also a journey in the literal sense of *renewal*. In the Christ event, the very thing that John is trying to prep his listeners for (and us), God is all about renewing the brokenness of his creation PERSONALLY.....first and foremost through the redemption brought by Christ on the cross, but then literally & physically through the good works of His Church.
cheers,
TM
Right off the bat there's an interesting textual variant between Luke's account of John's preaching and Matthew's. Luke says in 3:7 "So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?" Whereas, Matthew reserves the name-calling for only the Pharisees & Sadducees coming out for baptism (being evidently unconcerned with the slight oddity that Sadducees would wander *away* from Jerusalem & the Temple, Mt. 3:7). As most scholars date the writing of Matthew before that of Luke and see in Luke an intentional 'tinkering' or 'corrective,' one wonders why Luke would broaden the invective to include EVERYONE.
Some thoughts come to mind, but in the end (as always) it's mere speculation. Of course it goes without saying that the earlier the writing, the closer we get to the Jewish revolt of 66-73AD. Students of this era know that this was no "peasant's revolt." It began as a result of a series of missteps among the Jewish Ruling class (see Martin Goodman: "The Ruling Class of Judea"). Matthew, as an earlier writing, *may* have been trying to highlight a negative portrayal of the ruling class, in essence saying: 'not only can these guys not be trusted to successfully guide the country through revolt against Rome, but if you look back, even the prophet John the Baptist called them a brood of vipers.' Whereas, by the time Luke came along (likely in the 80s) all of the dust had settled. Perhaps this was Luke's way of simply being more 'egalitarian,' pointing out that ALL in the crowd were of equal need of repentance. Before we leave the topic, however, one last item of 'ownership' needs to be mentioned. It is a sad irony that we can detect very early on in the life of the church a certain anti-Semitic sentiment. It doesn't take long for the consciousness of the Church to *forget* that Jerusalem *had* been the mother church, and that the first believers were Torah-observant Jews. By the time Ignatius of Antioch comes on the scene the idea of a Torah-observant Jewish believer in Jesus seems almost repugnant to him (cf his letter to the Magnesians). One *hopes* that Luke's egalitarian treatment of all Jews in this text is not part of that early developing anti-Semitic sentiment.
In Luke 3:8, John says: "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. It has been mentioned by some that a "stone" or "stones" is metaphorical for Gentiles in Rabbinic thought. Hence, maybe John is pointing to the Gentiles in the crowd & saying: "these 'stones' could be children of God.....so don't brag about your ancestry from Abraham.'" Hmmmmmmmmm. Maybe. But we don't have a lot of evidence that John was steeped in Rabbinic thought. It might be safer to simply assume that stones means stones.
We find an interesting sentence in vs 14 "Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do ?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
Some commentators wish to make these soldiers Roman troops. If so, I suppose that would at least put *some* Gentiles in the crowd for the 'stone' metaphor to work. It seems safer, however, to assume that the troops are Herodian and of some Jewish extraction. We need to remember that when John lands in hot water, he doesn't find himself before a Roman court, he's imprisoned by Herod.
The passage ends by saying:
15 Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, 16 John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water ; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals ; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 "His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn ; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." 18 So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.
Vs 18 is one of those great "Lutheran-killers" in the new testament. By which I mean, the Lutheran hermeneutical tradition wants always to see a nice clean dichotomy between LAW and GOSPEL. Law = God's demands on us (that we, at best, can only marginally meet), whereas Gospel = God's loving gifts for & toward us. And I have to admit that this method works pretty good most of the time. Occasionally, however, it falls flat. Luke 3:18 is a pretty good example of that. John the Baptist gives a boatload of fiery exhortations and Luke calls that THE GOSPEL.
So, what's going on here?
It seems to me that Luke is portraying a prophet who's trying to stir an apathetic people to ACTION. He calls them ALL a brood of vipers, not just their leaders. His question "who warned you to flee the coming wrath" seems redundant. HE WARNED THEM.....by just his presence drawing their attention, if nothing else. And concerning his ritual immersion, all of them would be familiar with rites of immersion (for instance, before ascending to the Temple), but this rite seems to come closer to the idea of 'proselyte baptism,' the ritual cleansing that happens when a Gentile converts to Judaism. He's asking Jews to behave like Gentile converts--in essence, to start all over again in NEW RELATIONSHIP with their God. His ethical teachings about 'whoever has 2 coats should share with those who have none' have a two-fold meaning: (1) you share with those closest to you; your family; your community. John wants those being baptized to see themselves in communal terms. But also (2) there is journey symbolism at work. If you're headed out on a journey, you'll just be weighed down if you're trying to pack along a lot of un-needed extra items. Best to share with those who don't have enough, that way all will be able to journey in a state of preparedness. The journey is metaphorical.....in that it is a journey of *faith*.....but John and Jesus were not gnostics. It's also a journey in the literal sense of *renewal*. In the Christ event, the very thing that John is trying to prep his listeners for (and us), God is all about renewing the brokenness of his creation PERSONALLY.....first and foremost through the redemption brought by Christ on the cross, but then literally & physically through the good works of His Church.
cheers,
TM
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Sunday Dec 6th, thoughts going in
One of the great things about Advent is that regardless of what year of the lectionary cycle we're in, the 4 Sundays all have very *pronounced* themes. The first Sunday of Advent is always about the SECOND ADVENT. This is important. It helps us avoid the trap of sentimentalizing Advent (and Christmas). It is impossible to "look forward" in a real sense to the birth in Bethlehem. It has already happened. But we most definitely can & should look forward to the Second Advent of our Lord. Then the next two Sundays belong to John the Baptist, and finally the last Sunday of Advent belongs to Mary. It's the same every year.
The Gospel reading for this year for Advent 2 comes from Luke 3:1-6:
1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. 5 Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. 6 And all people will see God's salvation.'
I'm immediately struck with 2 things: (1)The original audience would've detected a 'shock value' in how Luke grounded what he said by mentioning the movers & shakers of his day. In our day he may have said something like "when Barack Obama was President of the United States, and Patrick Quinn was Governor of Illinois, and Benedict the XVI was Pope, .......something of immense cosmic importance occurred with a homeless guy living in Busse Woods." Get the drift? NOTHING that Obama is doing .....NOTHING that Quinn is doing.......and NOTHING that Benedict XVI is doing can even hold a candle to what is happening with this complete unknown/non-entity. Luke's day & age is not so different from our own. We think & expect that the world's problems can be solved by global decision makers, but God more often chooses to make His presence known through the small & insignificant.
The second thing that jumps out at me is where it says: "the word of God came to John, son of Zechariah in the wilderness."
I'm curious as to why Luke uses the phrase "rema Theou" instead of "logos tou Theou." Both can be easily translated "the word of God," but the latter is the highly recognized introduction to prophecy found in the Greek version of the Old Testament. When **ALL** of the prophets say that the word of the Lord came to them, it's appears as "logos tou Theou." Either Luke did not know his Greek Old Testament well, or this phrase was avoided for some other reason. The Greek 'rema' can mean *more* than just word or utterance, it can also mean 'voice' or the *sound* of speech. I wonder if Luke was attempting to heighten the prophetic nature of John's ministry, in essence by saying: not only does the Word of God come to John, but John being the last of the OT Prophets actually heard the VOICE of God.
I'm not sure I have the answer to that one just now, but it's fun to think about.
Cheers,
TM
The Gospel reading for this year for Advent 2 comes from Luke 3:1-6:
1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. 5 Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. 6 And all people will see God's salvation.'
I'm immediately struck with 2 things: (1)The original audience would've detected a 'shock value' in how Luke grounded what he said by mentioning the movers & shakers of his day. In our day he may have said something like "when Barack Obama was President of the United States, and Patrick Quinn was Governor of Illinois, and Benedict the XVI was Pope, .......something of immense cosmic importance occurred with a homeless guy living in Busse Woods." Get the drift? NOTHING that Obama is doing .....NOTHING that Quinn is doing.......and NOTHING that Benedict XVI is doing can even hold a candle to what is happening with this complete unknown/non-entity. Luke's day & age is not so different from our own. We think & expect that the world's problems can be solved by global decision makers, but God more often chooses to make His presence known through the small & insignificant.
The second thing that jumps out at me is where it says: "the word of God came to John, son of Zechariah in the wilderness."
I'm curious as to why Luke uses the phrase "rema Theou" instead of "logos tou Theou." Both can be easily translated "the word of God," but the latter is the highly recognized introduction to prophecy found in the Greek version of the Old Testament. When **ALL** of the prophets say that the word of the Lord came to them, it's appears as "logos tou Theou." Either Luke did not know his Greek Old Testament well, or this phrase was avoided for some other reason. The Greek 'rema' can mean *more* than just word or utterance, it can also mean 'voice' or the *sound* of speech. I wonder if Luke was attempting to heighten the prophetic nature of John's ministry, in essence by saying: not only does the Word of God come to John, but John being the last of the OT Prophets actually heard the VOICE of God.
I'm not sure I have the answer to that one just now, but it's fun to think about.
Cheers,
TM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
